England probably DID score in Twickenham at the death v Wales in 2012 if newspaper photos are to believed. Shane Williams definitely had a foot in touch against Scotland in 2008 (I believe), demonstrable on the available footage, and Mike Phillips DEFINITELY did not score against Ireland with the famous ball-boy gate try, again demonstrable on footage, but all 3 decisions stand in the record book because that is what the ref on the day decided, AND NOTHING CAN CHANGE THAT, so even though World Rugby may have made a statement, we lost, and please everyone who may be whinging in my camp shut the fûck up, and everyone poking the cage from outside please stop.

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 7:50 amPosts: 2398Location: Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...

Gwenno wrote:

England probably DID score in Twickenham at the death v Wales in 2012 if newspaper photos are to believed. Shane Williams definitely had a foot in touch against Scotland in 2008 (I believe), demonstrable on the available footage, and Mike Phillips DEFINITELY did not score against Ireland with the famous ball-boy gate try, again demonstrable on footage, but all 3 decisions stand in the record book because that is what the ref on the day decided, AND NOTHING CAN CHANGE THAT, so even though World Rugby may have made a statement, we lost, and please everyone who may be whinging in my camp shut the fûck up, and everyone poking the cage from outside please stop.

England probably DID score in Twickenham at the death v Wales in 2012 if newspaper photos are to believed. Shane Williams definitely had a foot in touch against Scotland in 2008 (I believe), demonstrable on the available footage, and Mike Phillips DEFINITELY did not score against Ireland with the famous ball-boy gate try, again demonstrable on footage, but all 3 decisions stand in the record book because that is what the ref on the day decided, AND NOTHING CAN CHANGE THAT, so even though World Rugby may have made a statement, we lost, and please everyone who may be whinging in my camp shut the fûck up, and everyone poking the cage from outside please stop.

BOD didn't score against France that time either.

I'd scrap TMOs tbh, they get it wrong often enough that the time they take becomes less and less useful. Refs' gut instincts are correct more often than not anyway.

The saddest element of this whole was it or wasn't it a try uproar is that Steff Evans could have said to the ref that the ball had in fact hit his hand and he'd knocked-on. If he'd have been honest then the TMO wouldn't have had a decision to make.

The saddest element of this whole was it or wasn't it a try uproar is that Steff Evans could have said to the ref that the ball had in fact hit his hand and he'd knocked-on. If he'd have been honest then the TMO wouldn't have had a decision to make.

The saddest element of this whole was it or wasn't it a try uproar is that Steff Evans could have said to the ref that the ball had in fact hit his hand and he'd knocked-on. If he'd have been honest then the TMO wouldn't have had a decision to make.

The saddest element of this whole was it or wasn't it a try uproar is that Steff Evans could have said to the ref that the ball had in fact hit his hand and he'd knocked-on. If he'd have been honest then the TMO wouldn't have had a decision to make.

The saddest element of this whole was it or wasn't it a try uproar is that Steff Evans could have said to the ref that the ball had in fact hit his hand and he'd knocked-on. If he'd have been honest then the TMO wouldn't have had a decision to make.

I'll have some of whatever you're smoking.

Is it too much to hope that there's still some honesty in the game? Evans will have known he knocked it on. It's likely he mentioned it to his teammates that he knocked it on whilst the TMO was deliberating. Possible even that Gatland knew Evans touched the ball when he was interviewed immediately after the game ended.

Expecting honesty is naïve. Great when it happens, but we have refs because players cheat. The point about TMOs is that even they are fallible but we should accept it and move on. As long as we believe that they are trying their hardest (as with lots of other jobs, police officers, doctors, nurses, even lawyers!) that is all we can ask.

Expecting honesty is naïve. Great when it happens, but we have refs because players cheat. The point about TMOs is that even they are fallible but we should accept it and move on. As long as we believe that they are trying their hardest (as with lots of other jobs, police officers, doctors, nurses, even lawyers!) that is all we can ask.

A TMO is a safety net but it still has holes!

The point about Evans saying something to the ref might be naive but I bet he mentioned it to his teammates. And Gatland will have known. It just made all the bleating after a bit unnecessary especially given the examples you pointed out in the OP where Gatland was on the right side of a favorable call.

Expecting honesty is naïve. Great when it happens, but we have refs because players cheat. The point about TMOs is that even they are fallible but we should accept it and move on. As long as we believe that they are trying their hardest (as with lots of other jobs, police officers, doctors, nurses, even lawyers!) that is all we can ask.

A TMO is a safety net but it still has holes!

The point about Evans saying something to the ref might be naive but I bet he mentioned it to his teammates. And Gatland will have known. It just made all the bleating after a bit unnecessary especially given the examples you pointed out in the OP where Gatland was on the right side of a favorable call.

Undeniably. I think Gatland sees himself as a Mob lawyer that is willing to use anything to fight his client's cause, and he won't let little things like knowledge of guilt get in the way - but I don't think that he is unusual in that, and I bet that a lot of other coaches would behave the same way.

Expecting honesty is naïve. Great when it happens, but we have refs because players cheat. The point about TMOs is that even they are fallible but we should accept it and move on. As long as we believe that they are trying their hardest (as with lots of other jobs, police officers, doctors, nurses, even lawyers!) that is all we can ask.

A TMO is a safety net but it still has holes!

The point about Evans saying something to the ref might be naive but I bet he mentioned it to his teammates. And Gatland will have known. It just made all the bleating after a bit unnecessary especially given the examples you pointed out in the OP where Gatland was on the right side of a favorable call.

I don't really understand how/why World Rugby haven't taken this into account too, saying the TMO was wrong about the grounding is disingenuous, given he was wrong about the knock on too (something he was also asked to check...)

Expecting honesty is naïve. Great when it happens, but we have refs because players cheat. The point about TMOs is that even they are fallible but we should accept it and move on. As long as we believe that they are trying their hardest (as with lots of other jobs, police officers, doctors, nurses, even lawyers!) that is all we can ask.

A TMO is a safety net but it still has holes!

The point about Evans saying something to the ref might be naive but I bet he mentioned it to his teammates. And Gatland will have known. It just made all the bleating after a bit unnecessary especially given the examples you pointed out in the OP where Gatland was on the right side of a favorable call.

I don't really understand how/why World Rugby haven't taken this into account too, saying the TMO was wrong about the grounding is disingenuous, given he was wrong about the knock on too (something he was also asked to check...)

Wrong decision(s), right outcome is the call WR should have made

It’s stupid for World Rugby to do anything other than to review incidents privately with the officials involved. Primarily as a learning exercise. Anyway, the 6n is nothing to do with them.

Expecting honesty is naïve. Great when it happens, but we have refs because players cheat. The point about TMOs is that even they are fallible but we should accept it and move on. As long as we believe that they are trying their hardest (as with lots of other jobs, police officers, doctors, nurses, even lawyers!) that is all we can ask.

A TMO is a safety net but it still has holes!

The point about Evans saying something to the ref might be naive but I bet he mentioned it to his teammates. And Gatland will have known. It just made all the bleating after a bit unnecessary especially given the examples you pointed out in the OP where Gatland was on the right side of a favorable call.

Maybe he (Gatland) knew, maybe he didn't, I'm not convinced he did - it took a while after the match for that footage of Evans' hand to emerge, and even that isn't conclusive as per the other thread on it. And the coaches don't have long to fully review that sort of stuff before they're up on the podium answering questions. However, I'll certainly admit it does provide a nice wedge issue for people / press to focus on, meaning less focus on the loss.

It's over, hopefully the team is firmly looking ahead to Ireland. Good thread Gwenno

Expecting honesty is naïve. Great when it happens, but we have refs because players cheat. The point about TMOs is that even they are fallible but we should accept it and move on. As long as we believe that they are trying their hardest (as with lots of other jobs, police officers, doctors, nurses, even lawyers!) that is all we can ask.

A TMO is a safety net but it still has holes!

The point about Evans saying something to the ref might be naive but I bet he mentioned it to his teammates. And Gatland will have known. It just made all the bleating after a bit unnecessary especially given the examples you pointed out in the OP where Gatland was on the right side of a favorable call.

Maybe he (Gatland) knew, maybe he didn't, I'm not convinced he did - it took a while after the match for that footage of Evans' hand to emerge, and even that isn't conclusive as per the other thread on it. And the coaches don't have long to fully review that sort of stuff before they're up on the podium answering questions. However, I'll certainly admit it does provide a nice wedge issue for people / press to focus on, meaning less focus on the loss.

It's over, hopefully the team is firmly looking ahead to Ireland. Good thread Gwenno

The confirmation that Evans touched the ball would have reached Gatland via Evans directly, not from the later replays.

It's a bit of a no win for them to be honest, we all wanted technology to be involved. Then we wanted it to be for more than just the act of scoring. Now we complain because it gets used too much, or can jump back 3 min of play including a try if foul play is picked up. Home town production teams have free reign over showing replays to influence the ref through crowd reactions, etc etc.

Where I think they have it wrong is the process and wording that goes with it and where they could learn a whole lot from League (apart from the big TRY on the scoreboard) Too much conversation and not enough clear answers, this is why I think certain laws need to be changed or re-worded/re-defined. The statement from WR was probably because people wanted to know what a 'grounding' is and why that wasn't one. (Which they still haven't really cleared up)

Being able to rock and roll four different angles at once seems to be something rugby can't manage either. Nor do I understand why they can't run a tablet out to the ref to see the replays in HD.

It's a bit of a no win for them to be honest, we all wanted technology to be involved. Then we wanted it to be for more than just the act of scoring. Now we complain because it gets used too much, or can jump back 3 min of play including a try if foul play is picked up. Home town production teams have free reign over showing replays to influence the ref through crowd reactions, etc etc.

Where I think they have it wrong is the process and wording that goes with it and where they could learn a whole lot from League (apart from the big TRY on the scoreboard) Too much conversation and not enough clear answers, this is why I think certain laws need to be changed or re-worded/re-defined. The statement from WR was probably because people wanted to know what a 'grounding' is and why that wasn't one. (Which they still haven't really cleared up)

Being able to rock and roll four different angles at once seems to be something rugby can't manage either. Nor do I understand why they can't run a tablet out to the ref to see the replays in HD.

Not sure that video on a tablet, in daylight, or under floodlights, is going to give the ref a good enough view to make such decisions.

Expecting honesty is naïve. Great when it happens, but we have refs because players cheat. The point about TMOs is that even they are fallible but we should accept it and move on. As long as we believe that they are trying their hardest (as with lots of other jobs, police officers, doctors, nurses, even lawyers!) that is all we can ask.

A TMO is a safety net but it still has holes!

The point about Evans saying something to the ref might be naive but I bet he mentioned it to his teammates. And Gatland will have known. It just made all the bleating after a bit unnecessary especially given the examples you pointed out in the OP where Gatland was on the right side of a favorable call.

Maybe he (Gatland) knew, maybe he didn't, I'm not convinced he did - it took a while after the match for that footage of Evans' hand to emerge, and even that isn't conclusive as per the other thread on it. And the coaches don't have long to fully review that sort of stuff before they're up on the podium answering questions. However, I'll certainly admit it does provide a nice wedge issue for people / press to focus on, meaning less focus on the loss.

It's over, hopefully the team is firmly looking ahead to Ireland. Good thread Gwenno

The confirmation that Evans touched the ball would have reached Gatland via Evans directly, not from the later replays.

It’s amazing you created a user just to repeat the opinion that it was a knock on, and state the same thing again and again in a variety of imagined scenarios. That really is sad as fùck. Just move on, the ref had his say, the TMO had his say, World Rugby had their say. It’s done, it’s dusted. As stated, let it fücking go.

Expecting honesty is naïve. Great when it happens, but we have refs because players cheat. The point about TMOs is that even they are fallible but we should accept it and move on. As long as we believe that they are trying their hardest (as with lots of other jobs, police officers, doctors, nurses, even lawyers!) that is all we can ask.

A TMO is a safety net but it still has holes!

The point about Evans saying something to the ref might be naive but I bet he mentioned it to his teammates. And Gatland will have known. It just made all the bleating after a bit unnecessary especially given the examples you pointed out in the OP where Gatland was on the right side of a favorable call.

I don't really understand how/why World Rugby haven't taken this into account too, saying the TMO was wrong about the grounding is disingenuous, given he was wrong about the knock on too (something he was also asked to check...)

Wrong decision(s), right outcome is the call WR should have made

It’s stupid for World Rugby to do anything other than to review incidents privately with the officials involved. Primarily as a learning exercise. Anyway, the 6n is nothing to do with them.

Agreed, at a push send out a clarification of the law thereafter if required. Not specifically hang a ref/tmo out to public scrutiny over a single incident

Expecting honesty is naïve. Great when it happens, but we have refs because players cheat. The point about TMOs is that even they are fallible but we should accept it and move on. As long as we believe that they are trying their hardest (as with lots of other jobs, police officers, doctors, nurses, even lawyers!) that is all we can ask.

A TMO is a safety net but it still has holes!

The point about Evans saying something to the ref might be naive but I bet he mentioned it to his teammates. And Gatland will have known. It just made all the bleating after a bit unnecessary especially given the examples you pointed out in the OP where Gatland was on the right side of a favorable call.

I don't really understand how/why World Rugby haven't taken this into account too, saying the TMO was wrong about the grounding is disingenuous, given he was wrong about the knock on too (something he was also asked to check...)

Wrong decision(s), right outcome is the call WR should have made

It’s stupid for World Rugby to do anything other than to review incidents privately with the officials involved. Primarily as a learning exercise. Anyway, the 6n is nothing to do with them.

Agreed, at a push send out a clarification of the law thereafter if required. Not specifically hang a ref/tmo out to public scrutiny over a single incident

The more I think about it the public pronouncement was pointless - it didn't change the outcome, it gave short term satisfaction to the vociferous minority, and it undermined the bloke trying his best. Private bollockings public silence is how it's done in the better organisations.

The point about Evans saying something to the ref might be naive but I bet he mentioned it to his teammates. And Gatland will have known. It just made all the bleating after a bit unnecessary especially given the examples you pointed out in the OP where Gatland was on the right side of a favorable call.

I don't really understand how/why World Rugby haven't taken this into account too, saying the TMO was wrong about the grounding is disingenuous, given he was wrong about the knock on too (something he was also asked to check...)

Wrong decision(s), right outcome is the call WR should have made

It’s stupid for World Rugby to do anything other than to review incidents privately with the officials involved. Primarily as a learning exercise. Anyway, the 6n is nothing to do with them.

Agreed, at a push send out a clarification of the law thereafter if required. Not specifically hang a ref/tmo out to public scrutiny over a single incident

The more I think about it the public pronouncement was pointless - it didn't change the outcome, it gave short term satisfaction to the vociferous minority, and it undermined the bloke trying his best. Private bollockings public silence is how it's done in the better organisations.

What sort of satisfaction does it give and to whom? The irb worded it completely wrongly and should have said he touched the ball before Watson ... that is all.Don't understand why it would have given 'satisfaction' either short or long term. It was just mummy saying 'there there, IRB kiss it better Gats'

Who really gives a flying f*ck?

It undermines the reffing team, contrary to its own rules, and will have been insisted upon being made public by the welsh management or WRFC.